Did I say anything contrary to this? I am interpreting your citing of my post above my response as some kind of argument against it. My point was that the apology didn’t specifically refute what Major Craib actually said, while using rather slippery language to disavow a more outrageous idea (humanity actually punishing gays) that Craib never made. To me it is a rather smooth shifting of attention away from the actuality that they are not disavowing Major Craib’s comments.
Exactly, and a very good point it was. (Sorry if I seemed to be arguing with you about it, that wasn’t my intention.)
My point was (meant to be) that the “smooth shifting of attention” was made possible by the very distortion and misinterpretation of Craib’s remarks that I’ve been objecting to. To wit:
-
Craib declares that his organization’s doctrine holds that homosexuals “deserve death”;
-
opponents make that declaration sound even worse by implying that the organization is actually seeking to have homosexuals executed;
-
and the organization gets to tapdance out of the controversy by responding “Mercy no, we never said we wanted homosexuals executed!” and not addressing what they actually said.
This is one of the reasons why it’s good not to try to pretend that something an opponent said is worse than it actually was: the opponent gets to indignantly deny the “worse” part and avoid taking responsibility for what they did say.
I disagree with this. It may be made easier, but it is certainly possible (and frequently done) without some intervening misinterpretations. It is a tried and true tactic to deny comments that sound like (but aren’t) the actual comments that were made. Most people don’t notice the difference, and while the rest are kinda scratching their heads and going, “Wha…?”, the denier is already onto calling the whole mess “yesterday’s news”.
Good point. Again.
Very good post.
It’s why it’s in someone’s interest to speak out against outlandish claims by those on their own side of an issue as well as on the other.
So where’s the part where they fired him again?
Besides, we’re looking at a retraction that contains straight-up lies. The SA is known for refusing to provide services on an equal basis to queer people, and they have legally fought for the right to be discriminatory in how they run their organization, as well as fighting for laws protecting discrimination against queer people in general.
So, uh, how does their lie-filled retraction exonerate them, exactly?
“As noted below…” where, exactly? Have I missed it? The SA disavowed an idea that Craib did not actually express. They have not disavowed the idea that he DID express.
I’m not attempting to defend that. But there is a difference between advocating death for gays and not giving benefits to same-sex partners. There is no evidence to suggest SA believes in the former.
I’m pretty sure persecution includes murder (even in the sense of “we won’t actively go out and kill them but won’t mind if someone else kills them”):
OTOH, as I noted above, it is traditional Christian theology that all humans are sinners and therefore deserving of death making the Atonement necessary. If you mean that, one can hardly them to retract such a core belief.
The SA of Australia has not made such a pronouncement. The SA of the United States actively promotes discrimination against gays within its own membership, so their statement is not credible.
Please show me a cite which demonstrates the SA as a matter of policy believes every human deserves death.
I’m not arguing “traditional Christian theology”. I’m discussing what this guy said, which was not a statement that all humans deserve death.
when people are worrying about other people’s sex lives…they have way to much time on their fucking hands.
I’m losing track here.
-
As I understand it, SA-USA wanted flexibility to deny benefits to same-sex partners among their ministers c. 2000. This doesn’t exactly destroy their credibility when they state their doctrine. Or have I missed something?
-
SA-USA says, “There is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for any reason including his or her sexual orientation.” I think “Kill” falls under “Mistreatment”.
-
The “Deserve death” remark in fact was never stated by a representative of SA. It was an interpretation of a gay rights activist of Romans, which wasn’t effectively refuted by the representative of SA. (In fact, the rep said, “Well that’s our doctrine” - not good).
-
SA-Australia says, Salvation Army members do not believe, and would never endorse, a view that homosexual activity
should result in any form of physical punishment. The Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine does not
state that practising homosexuals should be put to death and, in fact, urges all Salvationists to act
with acceptance, love and respect to all people.
The Salvation Army teaches that every person is of infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be
cherished, nurtured and preserved.
Question: Why include in your handbook the Romans text from The Bible, which indicates that God
insists that homosexuals deserve to die?
This is a misunderstanding of the text referred to. The Scripture in question, viewed in its broader
context, is not referring to physical death, nor is it specifically targeted at homosexual behaviour. The
author is arguing that no human being is without sin, all sin leads to spiritual death (separation from
God), and all people therefore need a Saviour. So there’s your quote. They continue: Question: Isn’t this inherently anti-Christian, to believe people should be put to death?
The Salvation Army acknowledges that the response in the interview has led to a serious
misunderstanding of our teaching and that clarification should have been given during the interview.
The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and believes it would be inconsistent
with Christian teaching to call for anyone to be put to death. We consider every person to be of
infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and preserved.
Question: Do you feel you owe an apology or explanation to all those gay and Lesbian volunteers
and people your organisation supports?
The Salvation Army sincerely apologises to all members of the GLBT community and to all our
clients, employees, volunteers and those who are part of our faith communities for the offence
caused by this miscommunication.
Conclusion
The Salvation Army encompasses a diverse community with a wide range of opinions on human
sexuality and other subjects.
The leadership of The Salvation Army continues to reflect on Christian and Biblical tradition, and
especially on the themes of justice and mercy, to further deepen the understandings of our own
members and build a more healthy relationship with the GLBT community.
We pledge to continue to offer services to all Australians and to treat each person with dignity,
respect and non-discrimination.
Major Bruce Harmer
(Communications and Public Relations Secretary ± Australia Eastern Territory)
This site gives a link to the .pdf, which has the above statement in full. It’s a press release, so I didn’t worry about copyright. http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-arrays/A2AF0257B165B3C085257A28005D5F1E?openDocument&charset=utf-8
Point 1 is mangled, and I did some googling.
NYT! , Dec 2011: Allegations that the church denied aid to a homeless gay couple unless they broke up. At the end of the article are denials of a sort by the SA rep.
The Australian SA also has issued a retraction:
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8583/Salvos-apologise-for-put-gays-to-death-quote.htm
which specifically addresses the issue:
The whole idea behind substitionary atonement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement
I’m not defending this fellow, I’m just saying you can’t say that this is in anyway representative of the views of the Salvation Army as a whole.
. . . he was the person that chapter of the Salvation Army specifically chose as their representative on matters pertaining to sexuality.
Wonderful. And the Australian and US branches have retracted his remarks, which incidentally were essentially shoved down his throat by a gay activist.
Romans: insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
…or teenaged assholes, as it were. Given first century life expectancy, the superficial target of Paul’s attack may very well have been males under the age of 21.
I know it’s going to come as a shock to many in this thread, but not all same-sex activities are pure manifestations of deep love and commitment. Some of it is recreational of course (not that I have a problem with that), but other variants are violent and non-consensual. Same sex relationships aren’t all pride parades and rainbow flags: in modern times we have something called prison rape, which is inflicted partly for reasons of dominance. That’s the sort of scenario we see in Genesis, and it may have very well been what Saint Paul had in mind when he spoke of the assholes in the next town over. So yeah the passage in Romans is homophobic, but it also seems to me to be mostly about other matters.
They were remarks he made freely. After being trained in the Salvation Army’s stances and beliefs.
I really don’t see why I should take a retraction more seriously, given that it came after the well-warranted backlash, and given that the retraction shared in this thread, as I pointed out earlier, is full of lies. It’s hard to take a discriminatory organization’s retraction seriously when it contains the out-and-out lie that they don’t even support discrimination.
It’s impossible for me to imagine what possible relevance this could have, unless you’re under some crazy misapprehension that every instance of straight sex is consensual and non-violent. Otherwise I don’t see why you’d bring this up. And it has nothing to do with the Biblical text in question, either, certainly: I wouldn’t normally describe a prison rape to assert a hierarchical dominance as an example of “men burning with passion for one another”.
Actually, re-reading the Romans verses, my interpretation might be a bit of a stretch. Not wholly implausible, just somewhat dubious.
As for SA, we’ve established in this thread that the remarks referenced in the OP have no basis in SA’s official documents and that furthermore they have been retracted and characterized as a miscommunication.
You are correct though that their stance on discrimination is at odds with their 2004 lobbying of the City of New York. From the New York Times: And in 2004, in response to a City Council ordinance requiring that organizations with city contracts offer benefits to gay employees’ partners, the Salvation Army threatened to stop operating in New York City. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg did not have to enforce the ordinance, which had been enacted over his veto; the Salvation Army never left New York City.
I find it hard to support an organization that would allow someone like that to be employed at all.
Come on. He said them. He is responsible. What a crock.
Lame excuse. We can read the transcript ourselves. It was pretty clear.